Some good points mentioned and this article is just as relevant today because of the current presidential debate. Domestic systemic flaws and the need for reform and effective foreign policy. Global strategic defence requires strong effective leadership from the head of state and it was not George W.Bush alone who made the decision for the invasion of Iraq. The debate for hard or soft foreign policy may be similar to the gun debate because at the end of the day you will still find someone wearing a gun on Elm Street.

There is much to admire and respect regarding America. During much of the past Century, it was the most admired and respected country in the world. However, the old saying that "power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely" appears to have affected America's perception of their role in the world.

It further appears that if countries are not aligned with the American view of the world, they are in the words of former President George W Bush, "with us or against us". This is a sad reflection on today's America. As demonstrated by the Marshall Plan, following World War Two, helping nations to become trading partners, rather than enemies, benefits everyone, especially the American people.

The cost to the American people by pretending to be the policeman of the world, is enormous. No nation has the right to dictate the internal policies and culture of another nation. If the U.S. did not spend more money than the next ten largest nations combined, the American people would have a much better life and be less concerned about their ability to feed, shelter, cloth, and educate their children.

Please America, go back to the society that made you the envy of the world.

America is not capable of surrendering their self perceived God given role as the only hegemonic power. America is a bipolar state in that it is the everything from East to West Coast and the rest of the world applauds the brilliance and detests the ugly side of what once was a great nation. Almost three decades as a hegemony and one questions the staying power of the nation. Unfortunately it has reached a point where America believes its own fabricated story and is not able to remove the retardation of the state. We have two options as a big brother for this century and it looks life the dragon may soar higher than the eagle at the end of the day.

The City-on-the-hill is the Beacon that Lights the World.
The ceremony-on-the-hill is eternal.
But when the World in its Darkness cannot see the Light.
Indeed time to retreat, but leave Enclaves of Light behind in the Dark.
For those who will seek the Light - until the transient becomes eternal.
The Source of Light is holy and must be preserved - The Trinity is forever.

Laws, both domestic and international, are obeyed so long as they are consistent with cultural values, and enforcement. Palaver entertains, but ultimately seems to fold in the game of power. Take the use of gas in Iraq, and the pusillanimous response to its use in Syria. Take genocide in diluted forms in Israel/Palestine, Turkey/Kurdistan, the Balkans and the balkanized Iraq. And the Syrian refugee scene? And what about the "my Dad can beat your Dad" of religious, racial, and material conflicts? It is an old story in history, recorded everywhere, defined by groupies - instinctive more than thoughtful - playing "king of the mountain" against one another. The best, albeit imperfect example, of conflict resolution, even temporary, is probably reflected in U.S. history. It is a salad of heritages, learning from overreaching, mistakes, and battles - like its wars, "open door" diplomacy, "manifest destiny", the Monroe Doctrine, and Wilsonian internationalism. It careens down the hallways of history clinging to what works for the moment. What may endure is its commitment to freedom, and its complicated, perhaps inexplicable, heritage of generosity, an accident of nature, or the gift of a tolerant deity. Leaders, even peacemakers, keep trying. Lots of luck. It is required.

Joseph s nye: which country or dynasty has proved invisible in history as long as it stood for advancement of economic growth freedoms and security of its people as well as others and the necessary political and other institutional infrastructures and declined when lost the track.
Take the rise and fall of several Greek cities most notably the Athens, mecedonian, persian, roman and the like. The very recent Examples of nepolianic France,British monarchical system,rise of national socialist Germany Hitler and communist internationalist Stalin and their fall, rise of US constitutional system based national sovereignty and UN system based on recognition of national sovereignty and the international law.

American establishment is the most powerful in present global world but now has realised that it's power has become unequal to the globalised uncertain events and may look inward as in the past.
But as is evident from history the US establishment must move in right direction to advance global productive and growth powers and towards global public freedoms and security to continue its relevance in global affairs.
That brings to the question you have raised.
I have been extensively been dealing with this issue ever since 2007 over the WTO forum on effects of US slow down on global economy and which way to go.

The US establishment must work to continue its leadership in global affairs and peace and security of global world.
1.must amend the constitution by adding global political unity through democratic federal UN.
2 must work for creating global judicial system within UN over and above ICJ
3 Security council of Parmanent five be replaced by council of seven of which six members directly elected by each one to a continents as electoral constituencies and seventh member by the six members as the rotational presidency each year as the executive organ of UN GA.

This political changes at global institutional levels due to changed global economic unity in production and markets price determination and it's consequential incomes and other climatic effects.

I hope the the US will go in right direction and not fall prey to isolation a list or anti globalisation direction peace and security of the humanity and planet earth.

The three questions are good ones, but I think they can only be answered in the context of well defined U.S. foreign policy objectives -- and those, to my view, have been obscure for several decades now.

Another important question concerns the role the U.S. will play in its multilateral engagements. When should the country lead -- and when should it be a dependable following partner?

By and large, the Obama presidency has been one of high notes, especially in foreign policy. Also, I realize that it is not possible to agree with every foreign policy decision he's had to make. But, I give him a lot of credit, especially in the recent nuclear deal with Iran, because the alternative, i.e. going to war with Iran, would have been more disastrous.

In addition, I believe that the overtures of the United States to strike a free trade agreement with the European Union (TTIP) is something that will be beneficial to both the United States and the European Union. That's because, when developed economies enter into free trade agreements with one another, they both, or all, mutually benefit. But, when developed economies and developing economies enter into free trade agreements with each other, the people who benefit the most are the financiers, and the people of the developing economies. For that reason, TPP is a very bad deal for Americans. As for the European Union, it presents a very interesting dynamic. First, the European Union is a very good integration project involving almost all Europeans. I wholeheartedly support it. Also, even though some European Union countries are still emerging economies; the European Union is still integrating, and, is more cohesive than the nations comprising the TPP. Therefore, I hope Obama clinches yet another foreign policy victory by infusing the economies of the United States and the European Union.

Joseph S. Nye argues that the future of US foreign policy depends on which path it takes. He laments the aura of "exceptionalism" the country is losing and its descent into “exemptionalism."
In the midst of the presidential campaign, GOP candidates have accused Obama of "isolationalism" because he prefers "diplomacy" to the "use of force" in resolving geopolitical conflicts. He is not the only president who seeks a less costly and a more sustainable foreign policy known as retrenchment. He follows the path of some of his predecessors who took corrective action to "maximalist over-commitment" of previous presidents, who had done "more damage to America’s place in the world." The oscillation between overreaching and underreaching in foreign policy had been the landmark of US foreign policy for decades.
Nye insists "retrenchment is not isolationism; it is an adjustment of strategic goals and means." Apart from Obama, he mentions Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter as exponents of retrenchment policies, saying "no objective historian would call any of these men isolationists." In Obama's case his retrenchment policy is seen as a strategy for averting the country's decline, although his critics don't agree with him.
Nye says "three fundamental questions" ought to be asked "about the future of the country’s foreign policy: How much? How interventionist? And how multilateral?"
Republicans believe in their country's military supremacy, opting for "gun" instead of "butter." They deem it necessary to spend on "defense and foreign policy". Yet ordinary Americans prefer more to be spent on "education, infrastructure, and research and development," which are "crucial to America’s domestic strength and global position."
The question about how much the US "should become involved in other countries’ internal affairs," is a contentious issue. Many Americans believe their country should continue to play a role in securing "global public goods". Yet most of them are war-weary and reject any military intervention abroad. Obama believes "America should use military force.....when its security or that of its allies is threatened," or, it "should not intervene alone and should use force only if there is a good prospect of success."
The last question is - according to Nye - the most crucial. Can lawmakers put aside partisan brinkmanship and end political paralysis on Capital Hill? If only the Congress would get its act together, many of the tensions between the US and other countries could have been eased.

US foreign policy has been in retreat since GW Bush Sr. with one exception, some of the events that followed 9/11. The Obama administration has decided to work with proxies, so the end users/potential beneficiaries pay the bills and the US is beyond approach or responsibility, hoping at the same time to reducing the US public debt.

The Greatest Nation of the 20th Century needs greatness in implementing a Grand Strategy.
Brilliance lies in retreat, with distinctive Assets in place that remain detrimental 500 years later.
The Roman Empire retreated but retained its influence in the World via The Vatican - One Billion plus.
The British Empire retreated but retained its influence in the World via The Anglosphere - One Lingua Franca.
There can only be One Rome and One London - America perhaps their best joint venture.
China India Islam are each One Billion plus - in a World where Size always matters.
Americans needs a Grand Strategy - that ensures influence despite apparent retreat.
Thankless interminable quagmire can drain its resources beyond repair.
Guns butter taxes - that the author reiterates, are important to the chemistry of Grand Strategy.
Interference in domestic Civil Warfares overseas - must be limited.
Transnational Issues must remain Multiplayer - the Nine Planets in equilibrium.
Above all, The Sun shines by retaining capacity to provide The Light.
It must not be cursed for providing The Light - thankless waste of its energies.
Light that remains Inclusive - leaving hope every chance to touch every life.
In the Darkest corners of the Planet, American Retreat must leave behind Islands of Light.
Islands that display its capacity and allow Light to pervade through the darkness.
Enclaves of Light that being shine to lives in the darkness - Schools + Hospitals, MegaCorporations + MegaCities.
Migration from Darkness to Light must always remain a possibility for all seekers of Light, always.
Once America has its Grand Strategy - that leaves Enclaves behind in The Dark - in retreat, it can rejoice.

Mr. Nye has offered a very succinct analysis about the unfolding of American foreign policy in the 20th century and its lessons for the future. One fundamental question however is the issue of the transfer of knowledge and expertise across generations within the USA. Is the American educational system operating at the level of efficiency that is required to ensure that successor generations can develop the intellectual sophistication needed for the USA to remain competitive. The issue of taxes is also about ensuring that there is adequate investment in intellectual capital - i.e. education.

Joseph has presented a solid article that highlights the key issues facing future policy direction. For those who may chose to argue against this article I would recommended reading strategic vision by Brzezinski which is now available in PDF format.
This is the Asian Century where the threat of the threat may no longer work in foreign policy as the bipolar cold war period has transitioned into a multi-polar world where the hegemonic supremacy of the US is not what it once was. Butter guns & taxes paragraph is a great summation and critical to the future of the US. The Middle East has been one form of conflict or another during last century and regional conflict will continue for some time yet to come. A valid point in international law raised with the fact that the US has not ratified UNCLOS.
A well rounded and balanced article that every American Citizen needs to read and understand before making either comment or ballot box decisions. The next President (foreign policy) will either make or break the US in the remaining Q1 of 21 C.

It took you a long time to deal with American Exceptionalism - the main issue at hand when it comes to foreign policy....

My contention is that US public needs to be educated about the rising powers in Asia and their fundamental influence on US
strategic outlook. Mainland China has more or less challenged US in South China Sea - to choose between failure or surrender.

Indian strategic outlook may be changing & moving closer to US - due primarily to rise of China's PLA in Indian Ocean. Yet I don't see India more or less denying itself the nation interest to choose what it wants from US and what not. India has never been an American stooge principally because Pakistan/ISE was established by Pentagon to challenge independent India.

US politicians are not only ignorant of emerging Asian powers and their national interest(s); they don't seem to care; reason why they oppose TPP also.

The actual malaise is the decline and fall of American educational system (from my days in Bay Area) to the point were now anything goes - as long as one can get a headline or mention in the media. It doesn't matter if truth is being falsified for an egregious purpose.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.